Redemptions should not expire

[30ranfordfan]

Expiration dates are necessary. I realize we're talking (in this thread) about signed cards from 2012-13 - but I don't think anyone would suggest UD still honour my "You Crash The Game" winners from 1994. Is there a difference? Sure (at least if I crack those mid-90s boxes, I'm still getting something!) but I don't think anyone believes that 20+ years later, old mail in cards need to be hanging around.

UD could make the expiration date further from the release date (5 years instead of 3?) and that would be nice.

I do agree that Panini does a good job at how they handle the problem. They will give you something as a replacement, if they no longer have the card.

IMO - If you've got an expired redemption card... and UD still has copies of that card in hand, they should honour it - you just can't expect them to. The day after those codes expire... the remaining stock is fair game for UD to do whatever they want with (replacements).

If they don't have it in stock, sending you something of (roughly) equal value would be the fairest thing... but they don't have to, and I would imagine that isn't going to change (quite honestly - why should they care? We keep giving them our money, despite these practices).

I will say: My one experience with UD and an expired redemption couldn't have been better. I called them, had a code that was (roughly) 90 days past it's expiry date (was a triple SOTT of Orr / Esposito / Bucyk). They still had the card in stock, and sent me one.

[sparty07]

I think the difference there is that the spoon was not a guaranteed item that was advertised on the side of the box. In the case of SPA they guarantee x number of autographs on the advertisement. The redemption is not a "bonus" item, but an integral value of the box that you are buying. I think the right approach is the one that Panini goes by that you are "guaranteed" the card if you redeem it by X date, and if at any point later they don't have the card you are given something of equal value. I had 2 2015/16 artifacts redemptions that I turned in recently (McCann base redemption and Fucale Auto (XI or something like that)) and after 2 months the status was something along the lines of "Currently unavailable, check back later". I called yesterday and CS told me that they hadn't printed those cards yet and to be patient. These are cards that are not typically replacable as once they release the checklist they guarantee that they will be printed. Thankfully they are attempting to replace those 2 cards instead of forcing me to wait for them to reprint them at some point in the future.

Given that Upper Deck is an American company, it would be American law. It's the same as any "sweepstakes" or other program that you see in cereal boxes, etc. These programs must have an expiration date. Frosted Flakes cannot have an open-ended obligation to send you a spoon if you send in six UPC codes from boxes in 2008.

[Drewk86a]

It's the law that they have to expire.

I did not consider the legal aspect of it but you make a good point. Speaking of legal issues...Do they players have any legal obligation to sign cards? Does UD negotiate directly with the player, or with the NHLPA?

I guess maybe I'm more cheesed about the myriad of problems with the whole notion of redemptions. Card company advertises and sells a card that they know they do not have and, if the players don't return them, may never have.

[creasecollector]

I did not consider the legal aspect of it but you make a good point. Speaking of legal issues...Do they players have any legal obligation to sign cards? Does UD negotiate directly with the player, or with the NHLPA?

I guess maybe I'm more cheesed about the myriad of problems with the whole notion of redemptions. Card company advertises and sells a card that they know they do not have and, if the players don't return them, may never have.

The exclusive deal is reached with the NHLPA. And beyond that, UD works through the players agents on card deals, etc. Because as part of the players contract, Agents get a cut on their card signing earnings.

I believe that if you're a rookie, you need to be available to sign some cards, and after that it's the players decision of they want to participate and sign cards for UD.

[doniceage]

It's the law that they have to expire.

You're free to present your case to Congress about the law.

About the "guaranteed by"--they can't make that promise. There's legal ramifications to "guaranteeing" something and if the player doesn't sign, that can put the manufacturer in trouble. That's usually how the system works to this day...if you pull a redemption card and it gets fulfilled by the player, you get the card in a timely fashion. There are programs in place for expired redemptions to get exchanges, and there have even been times where if you call in to the manufacturer they may be able to help you out.

Richard,
Thinking on this subject out of the box. Could these have been considered a redemption as it would have been a very limited redemption (made to order) cards by ITG. Remember Dr. Price honored these many years after the product was live if someone pulled one later down the road. Just thinking outside of the box as they could possibly be considered redemptions in dictionary term.

Did they have dates on them as I cannot recall as I never pulled one.


@RGM81

Don

[RGM81]

As I never pulled one either, I don't know for sure the parameters of the MTO program.

[RGM81]

I did not consider the legal aspect of it but you make a good point. Speaking of legal issues...Do they players have any legal obligation to sign cards? Does UD negotiate directly with the player, or with the NHLPA?

I guess maybe I'm more cheesed about the myriad of problems with the whole notion of redemptions. Card company advertises and sells a card that they know they do not have and, if the players don't return them, may never have.

It's the biggest catch-22 they face. They'll have individual deals with the players worked out in advance of a product being release. They won't just slap Sidney Crosby's name on the checklist unless they've got a reasonable and grounded belief that he's going to sign the cards and get them back before release date. This is why you've seen so few Crosby autos this year...

[30ranfordfan]

I had one from BTP, and as I recall - there was no expiry date.

Richard,
Thinking on this subject out of the box. Could these have been considered a redemption as it would have been a very limited redemption (made to order) cards by ITG. Remember Dr. Price honored these many years after the product was live if someone pulled one later down the road. Just thinking outside of the box as they could possibly be considered redemptions in dictionary term.

Did they have dates on them as I cannot recall as I never pulled one.


@RGM81

Don

[30ranfordfan]

I did not consider the legal aspect of it but you make a good point. Speaking of legal issues...Do they players have any legal obligation to sign cards? Does UD negotiate directly with the player, or with the NHLPA?

I guess maybe I'm more cheesed about the myriad of problems with the whole notion of redemptions. Card company advertises and sells a card that they know they do not have and, if the players don't return them, may never have.

The exclusive deal is reached with the NHLPA. And beyond that, UD works through the players agents on card deals, etc. Because as part of the players contract, Agents get a cut on their card signing earnings.

I believe that if you're a rookie, you need to be available to sign some cards, and after that it's the players decision of they want to participate and sign cards for UD.

It's the biggest catch-22 they face. They'll have individual deals with the players worked out in advance of a product being release. They won't just slap Sidney Crosby's name on the checklist unless they've got a reasonable and grounded belief that he's going to sign the cards and get them back before release date. This is why you've seen so few Crosby autos this year...

I do not believe any player HAS to sign for Upper Deck, unless they're Crosby / Gretzky / Orr / Roy / McDavid / Matthews (guys that have exclusive deals - I would imagine the number of autographs per year is in the contract).

The NHLPA strongly urges the rookies to sign for card companies... but I'd be surprised to learn they are actually required. Do what your union asks..... maybe there's some pressure. I think after that, it's simply UD offering player $X per auto, and they take it or leave it.

[Wookster]

Why do you think the price of redemption-heavy products always drops after expiration date?

I haven't seen the price of any SP Authentic product from any year go down in price. What your saying is true for some products like Artifacts where there was always an advertised redemption, but other than the 12-13 year for SPA, the prices are still high. If you pay for a box that advertises to have 3 autographed cards in it, you should get 3 autographed cards. Panini tries to accommodate anyone who still pays money to buy their product and gets a redemption, all of which would be expired by now for their NHL sets, but UD doesn't.

They do extend their redemptions for a year past the expiry date(which is something at least), so why not a bit further? I assume that they got Tarasenko to actually sign all 999 of his FWA cards so why not send one out to a customer who paid good money to buy their product and pulled that redemption? Sorry, will stop ranting now, but I just see this a being an example of a company that really just doesn't care all that much about the actual people that buy their products. Too bad that other company's go the extra mile for customer service etc. but still can't get the change to own a license for NHL products.